Aviation

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin, and to have the Minister respond to the debate.

My interest in airports first came about because, at a time when many boys want to be train drivers, my younger brother had an ambition to be an airport manager. Consequently, whenever we went on holiday, my indulgent parents would take us to the airport four or five hours before we needed to be there, and my brother would go around and catalogue the catering outlets and investigate the cleaning rosters. I was delighted, a few years later, when he decided that he actually wanted to be a doctor.

As an economist, I worked for a short period on airline alliances, but my most significant involvement with aviation came 10 years ago when, following a leak in the Financial Times a few months earlier, the then Labour Government published the “South East and East of England Regional Air Services Study”—SERAS—which proposed an airport twice the size of Heathrow at a location it described as Cliffe, in the constituency I now represent. Then as now, many felt that that was a stalking horse to make airport expansion elsewhere seem more attractive by comparison.

Our first response was to look at that airport study, which we noted excluded any consideration of Gatwick expansion, on the basis that there was a planning agreement, and it looked no further at that idea at all. I was sort of blooded on that issue when I first asked whether that decision was perhaps irrational and something that would be questioned by the courts. Initially, a judicial review was proposed, which ultimately led to the Labour Government being forced to consider the case for a second runway at Gatwick, even though they had previously decided against it.

The debate that took place showed that an estuary airport would be environmentally devastating, and that the economics simply did not add up. I and many others were delighted to campaign with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Friends of North Kent Marshes, and many others who made the case that having a huge airport in the middle of Europe’s leading wetland landscape, with its millions of birds, was probably not a good idea.

The assumption by some that no people live in that area and that there would be no opposition was put paid to by more than 20,000 people who live on the broader Hoo peninsula, and who would suffer egregiously from such an airport. In addition, large numbers of people live on both sides of the estuary, and any flights taking off in a westerly direction would create new flight paths over heavily populated areas of London. The idea that such an airport would somehow be a problem-free solution that people would not complain about is, to coin a phrase, for the birds.

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

To follow on from that, one point made by advocates of the estuary solution is that the area is crying out for new jobs. Does my hon. Friend agree that that ignores the economic growth that is already happening, particularly in south Essex, with the expansion of the port? That is the future of the estuary—ports, not airports.

[Mark Reckless]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I congratulate her on her work in campaigning for economic development in her area. The fundamental point is that although jobs might be created—I do not deny that there would be a lot of jobs; perhaps 200,000, as some estimates suggest—they would come 10, 15 or 20 years from now, and would be almost entirely taken by a vast migration of people who would be forced to uproot themselves, perhaps from around Heathrow, and move to a new area. In terms of Government engineering, I cannot see the case for that in a free society.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Has he seen the report issued by the South East local enterprise partnership, which states that if we allowed our existing airports to expand, we could increase the number of jobs by about 100,000? That would generate in excess of £4 billion per annum.

[Mark Reckless]

Yes, I have seen that report, and I have a copy with me. Indeed, I encouraged Medway council, and through it the local enterprise partnership, to commission that excellent study. My hon. Friend and neighbour is right, and I will draw significantly on the analysis in that paper during my speech.

As well as the environmental issues, there is a knock-down argument against the Thames estuary airport: it is vastly more expensive to build a new airport than to expand existing provision. Recently, some of those issues have been revisited with Boris’s pie-in-the-sky proposals, whether for Boris island, for a Foster monstrosity over the Isle of Grain, or even to look again at the Cliffe option that was so unambiguously rejected. Some newer issues have come to the fore. For instance, there is the London Array wind farm, and billions of pounds of investment have been put into a major liquefied natural gas terminal. There is the Richard Montgomery, a sunken vessel laden with high explosives, which this Government—unlike the previous one—tell us about, and provide reports on, to clarify the risk. Furthermore, issues of air traffic control have become even more significant than they were 10 years ago, partly because of the expansion of Schiphol airport over that period.

I note from the Parsons Brinckerhoff report mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) that Richard Deakin, the chief executive of the National Air Traffic Services, said that the proposed site for the new airport was

“directly under the convergence of major arrival and departure flight paths for four of London's five airports.”

Pointing to the Thames estuary on a map, he said:

“The very worst spot you could put an airport is just about here…We’re a little surprised that none of the architects thought it worthwhile to have a little chat with the air traffic controllers.”

[Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, but I am a bit depressed by the combination of nimbyism and sticking-plaster solutions that he puts forward. Is he aware that the UK remains without any direct connection to 11 cities in mainland China that are expected to be among the 25 biggest cities in the world by 2025? Only a hub airport can deliver the sort of connectivity for which businesses in Orpington, and doubtless in my hon. Friend’s constituency, are crying out.

[Mark Reckless]

I encourage my hon. Friend to listen to the rest of my speech, and not merely to recycle briefings that I, too, have received. There are many arguments for a hub airport, and I do not deny that some are valid. Many, however, are recycled by industry players with strong vested interests that are not necessarily those of the country as a whole. However, I will address my hon. Friend’s point later in my remarks.

Finally, some estimates suggest that the cost of the proposal will be £40 billion, £50 billion or even £100 billion. The Parsons Brinckerhoff report, a substantive piece of work, argues that

“even the £70 billion being discussed is a conservative estimate.”

Boris tells us that that money will come from private investors. Yes, but they will want a return. Even if we are looking at a 5% interest rate over a 50-year period, a return on that sort of money will add at least £50 to the cost of every plane ticket from the airport. Why would airlines, passengers, the Government, indeed anyone, want to pay that sort of money when the cost of expanding existing airports—including some that Members present may be promoting—is so much smaller?

The coalition Government were right to reverse the policy that the previous Government decided on in 2003. To recap, the then Government’s recommendation was a second runway at Stansted by 2011-12, a third runway at Heathrow by 2015 to 2020 and, following our judicial review, a second runway at Gatwick from the mid-2020s. The strongest reason why we were right to overturn that is that the projections on which the Labour Government operated from 2003 were, as I and many others set out clearly at the time, wholly unrealistic. They were based on a low case of 400 million passenger movements for the UK by 2030, and a high case of 600 million.

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I am listening with great attention and fascination to my hon. Friend’s speech, but he has not addressed a very pertinent point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson): at present we do not have access, or cannot fly directly, to those cities in China. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) will come to that in his speech, but I am conscious that it is probably one of the most important questions that he could address, and I would very much like to hear his thoughts on it.

[Mark Reckless]

In deference to my hon. Friend, I shall bring forward my remarks on that point.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

Before my hon. Friend does so, will he say if he welcomes the fact that Heathrow delivers more flights to China than any of its continental rivals, meaning that we have excellent connectivity to important emerging markets such as China?

[Mark Reckless]

Yes, I hugely welcome that. From listening to the debate that is dominated by a small number of players with the strongest vested interests and the most public relations consultants, one would get almost the reverse impression. When we talk about flights to China, it is important to remember that the reason why we have relatively few different city destinations—that is separate from the overall number of flights, which the Minister was right to raise and I think is more important—is that it is for the convenience of British Airways, the dominant player at Heathrow, to use Hong Kong as a hub airport for China, in exactly the way that it uses Heathrow as a hub here, through the Oneworld alliance and Cathay Pacific.

[Joseph Johnson]

First, on a point of fact, according to BAA, London has only 31 flights a week to two destinations in mainland China, whereas there are 56 to three such cities from Paris Charles de Gaulle airport, and 51 to four such cities from Frankfurt. Furthermore, my hon. Friend references Hong Kong and Shanghai. Surely he is aware of the additional cost that comes from having to route products, goods and services through Shanghai and Hong Kong, as opposed to sending them directly to where the market is, in mainland China. Our businesses are crying out for connectivity. That is an obstacle.

[Mark Reckless]

I made no mention of Shanghai. The reason why there are only 31—

[Joseph Johnson]

Hong Kong is a transhipment point.

[Mark Reckless]

I mentioned Hong Kong, and the reason why Hong Kong is used so much is that that is hugely to the economic benefit of BA, Cathay Pacific and the Oneworld alliance. They use Hong Kong for exactly the same reasons why my hon. Friend promotes Heathrow—these great hub economics, which are certainly to the benefit of the airline providing a service. There are arguments for hub airports, but the arguments that my hon. Friend makes for point-to-point services to more cities are very strong ones. As for why we do not have them, I refer to a written answer from the Minister in March 2012. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) has seen it. It states:

“China—restricted to six points in the UK and six points in China since 2004”—

according to a 2004 treaty—

“with a current limit of 31 passenger services per week by the airlines of each side allowed”.—[Official Report, 14 March 2012; Vol. 542, c. 239W.]

If my hon. Friend would like to see more flights to more Chinese cities, the way to do it is to rip up that treaty, and for the UK to move to a unilateral open-skies position that allows any Chinese airline to fly to any city in the UK.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I am trying to work through the maze of complicated arguments that my hon. Friend is presenting, but I have just a simple question. Does he believe that the United Kingdom as a whole needs more aviation capacity?

[Mark Reckless]

Yes.

[Tracey Crouch]

There is an argument about competitiveness, and that argument is for today. Our colleagues are arguing that businesses in their constituencies require the opportunities now. Therefore we should be making the most of our existing airports, rather than waiting two decades for a new airport to be built to maximise opportunities.

[Mark Reckless]

I agree. There is huge scope for what my hon. Friend describes. It would hugely benefit not just the Medway towns and the south-east region, but the country as a whole.

I want to talk about one other area where the lobbyists have a certain position. I received a document yesterday from the Mayor of London, who tells me that he is delighted that I am having this debate. He says:

“France’s hub airport, Paris Charles de Gaulle (56 departures per week), has better connections to Brazil than Heathrow (27 departures per week).”

The reason is that we have a bilateral treaty with Brazil, with a current limit of 35 passenger services a week between the two countries. Again, that is vastly to the benefit of BA, which routes flights to Latin America, including Brazil in particular, through the joint hub that it now has in Madrid, through Iberia following the merger. We do not get pressure from BA to change that, because it hugely benefits its profits, but BA’s market capitalisation is in the low billions. The idea that our whole airline policy and the network of treaties negotiated by the previous Government should restrict those flights and prevent Brazilian or Chinese airlines from flying into our large cities is a huge mistake.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

Even if we were to rip up every treaty that my hon. Friend has identified as a block, does he seriously believe that there is sufficient capacity at our hub airport? Will a hub airport alone sustain newly developing point-to-point routes? Does he seriously argue that Heathrow could suddenly accommodate more routes to developing countries?

[Mark Reckless]

Yes, I do argue that. The limit on Heathrow’s routes to developing countries is largely because of the fact that those who have the slots find it most profitable to put on vast numbers of flights to New York and almost as large numbers to Hong Kong. It would benefit the country as a whole much more if there were a wider network of routes, rather than just what happens to benefit British Airways and maximise its profits. To get to what my hon. Friend suggests, the treaty we need to rip up is the treaty of Rome, because it is under European directives—[Interruption.] The reason why the slots are organised as they are is that they have been capitalised into property rights for the airlines that historically happen to have used them, and it is because of European legislation that that has been allowed to happen. If we want a more effective route network for our country as a whole, within the existing constraints of Heathrow—of course, others will argue that it needs to be bigger or we need a hub somewhere else and so on—European legislation prevents us from having that. Anyone who wants to set up a marginal route to an emerging market needs to buy out, at vast expense, one of the existing airlines, particularly BA, which has a near monopoly power. They have to give BA a huge amount of money to take the slots they need for those routes. The reason why they cannot do that is cost, yet we have treaties that restrict the amount of access that overseas airlines have into the UK. They could otherwise be flying into Gatwick, Stansted or Birmingham as city pairs, but the routes and slots are at Heathrow, and the regulation creates that monopoly power.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Is my hon. Friend seriously suggesting that the key to our aviation problems is ripping up the treaty of Rome?

[Mark Reckless]

It would certainly help. There are other ways in which the issue could be addressed; for instance, the air passenger duty regime. Many lobbyists are against the size of air passenger duty, but in operating conditions where there is an almost perfect monopoly at Heathrow and, at peak and to an extent shoulder periods, a monopoly at Gatwick, what happens through the increase in air passenger duty is that some of the monopolised value of those slots and the power of the grandfather rights are given instead to the public purse. It is not a situation of perfect competition in which costs are passed on. To the extent that costs rise, whether they are landing fees or APD, that will largely be absorbed into the price, giving greater public benefit, and possibly driving some of the marginal leisure stuff out of Heathrow and Gatwick.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Would the hon. Gentleman mind running past me again how the treaty of Rome is an obstacle to more liberal air service agreements with other countries? When I was aviation Minister, we signed agreements with a variety of countries to allow more liberalised flight access to both countries, and the treaty of Rome was not an obstacle then. Given Gatwick’s recent expansion into five new routes, the treaty does not seem to be an obstacle. How will tearing up the treaty of Rome solve our aviation competitiveness questions?

[Mark Reckless]

There are two problems: first, the treaty of Rome gives property rights in-slot to airlines that have traditionally had them, which prevents new airlines from coming in with marginal routes to new emerging market countries, due to the cost of buying out the monopolist. Only more and more fights to New York or Hong Kong make such routes work. Secondly, the previous Government protected the monopolistic BA with restrictive agreements that prevent Brazilian airlines from flying here, saying that there should be no more than 35 passenger services a week and allowing only 31 a week to China. If we want more flights to emerging markets, we should just let Brazilian and Chinese airlines fly to any UK airport they want, without insisting on reciprocal rights for BA. That is what is holding the country back; the interests of Britain are not the interests of BA.

The final section of my speech is about our other airports. In 2010, we rightly said no to an estuary airport and to extra runways at Gatwick, Stansted and Heathrow. That was the right policy for this Parliament. I do not know the Liberal Democrat position on when or if there should be future runway capacity in the south-east, but it is right that the Conservatives at least look at the case for new runways as and when demand requires. A lot can be done with existing capacity. Gatwick is expanding strongly and setting up point-to-point routes in new emerging markets, which I welcome. That would be helped if Gatwick were allowed to invest in the A380 facilities by charging more and coming to its own arrangements with new airlines to build those facilities without existing suppliers having a veto. I would support greater deregulation of Gatwick in that regard.

I understand that the option now being promoted by the Mayor of London is Stansted. Since the previous White Paper and the Labour Government’s view, usage at Stansted has fallen off significantly and intercontinental flights there have stopped. The Mayor says that we should expand Crossrail to Stansted, and I am keen to discuss that. He may have ideas that I have not appreciated fully, and that are certainly a lot more constructive than his pie in the sky proposals for a Thames estuary airport.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. When I spoke to those at Stansted recently, they made it clear that, given that the airport was at only 50% capacity, they want no more discussion of a second runway—that just messes up their relationship with the local community. Stansted wants a better rail service. I hope that he will support that.

[Mark Reckless]

That is certainly the position in the short-term. I am keen to see better surface travel into Gatwick. The deterioration in the train service there is most unfortunate. Investment is strongly in the national interest.

The British Chambers of Commerce initially proposed a “Heathwick” arrangement. There are some issues with the economics of it, but the existing system is the reason why it could be attractive. If we allowed Gatwick to invest £5 billion in a super-fast railway to Heathrow—by the way, BA, it would take 15 minutes airside, rather than an hour to connect them—it would be regulated capital and would lead to higher slot prices at Gatwick, which is a good thing anyway. Our problem with aviation in this country has been that we have held down the cost of landing fees at Heathrow and Gatwick, which means that they are operating at near capacity with all the problems mentioned. If we allowed landing fees to rise and entirely deregulated Gatwick and Heathrow, there would be a big transfer of economic value from the airlines to BAA.

Another way to do it would be differential APD, particularly on short-haul flights at Heathrow. Because we could get the cost back from higher landing charges at Gatwick, Heathwick, although not ideal, might make sense within the existing system; it would press out some of the leisure point-to-point flights from Gatwick and allow intercontinental flights to come there.

From Heathrow’s promoters, we hear that it is a great hub, that we need just one hub and that Paris Charles de Gaulle has more destinations than us, but those destinations are in French west Africa—Mali, Bangoui and Ouagadougou. I do not think that there is any suggestion that that should happen from Heathrow. Most demand is leisure, not business. Heathrow still flies more people and planes than other airports, even those with four or six runways.

We do not necessarily need a hub that is ideal for those who happen to operate that hub. There is a suggestion that a dual-hub is not ideal. That is true, but it is an awful lot better than no expansion and forcing more and more people to use European airports. According to the constrained Department for Transport forecast, which I find questionable in a number of ways, if we do not allow expansion in the south-east, 25 million rather than 4 million people will fly from Belfast by 2050 and 12 million people rather than 700,000 will fly from Exeter by 2030.

I question the plausibility of those forecasts, but if we deregulate air travel and allow a second runway at Gatwick in due course, after the agreement runs out in 2019—I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) that it should not be immediately—it will make it more attractive for the airline to expand in the airport. At some point, the Liberal Democrats may think that we will need at least one runway in the south-east. The strongest demand from the vested interests is for that to be at Heathrow, but there is a strong argument for the country as a whole for it to be at Gatwick. It would benefit from being there because we would then have competing hubs, with potentially another airline alliance based at Gatwick. It would drive down prices, serve more destinations and operate for the benefit of UK consumers as a whole, rather than just those who happen to have the strongest vested interests and shout loudest in current consultations.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. If I may intrude on the London and south-east grief with a question about the midlands, what are his views on encouraging passengers from the midlands and further north not to go to Gatwick or Heathrow for their leisure flights, but to use the airport they are driving past? Does he support the idea of a congestion charge around London to make regional airports more competitive?

[Mark Reckless]

Higher APD on short-haul flights from Gatwick and particularly Heathrow could allow airports beyond the south-east to compete for marginal business that might make more sense at those airports, particularly the leisure flights of people based in the midlands and the north who are flying point to point. Similarly, if we deregulated our international air agreements, there would be a better chance that intercontinental networks would base themselves at Birmingham airport, for example, which now has a longer runway.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. An argument is that regional airports across the country will take up some of the slack. My airport, Leeds Bradford, has invested heavily—£11 million—in expansion and has new links to Heathrow. Is it not the case that despite the important role that regional airports play across the country, they will not lessen the need for expansion in the south-east and London? Ultimately, people want to fly into the capital city of a country and we cannot get away from that fact.

[Mark Reckless]

Yes, I think that is right. My argument is that it is entirely conceivable to have two hubs. Heathrow currently has many more passengers and planes using it than most of the other supposed competing hubs. The problem is that the slot prices are very high and profits are being maximised by those who, under EU law, own the property rights in those slots. If instead we allow a second hub, and Gatwick is the more attractive and conceivable hub to develop, and both operate in that way, competing airlines would drive down prices and give many more links to emerging markets, rather than very thick routes to New York and Hong Kong. That is my view, but perhaps the Mayor of London has considered matters that I have not. Stansted, and potentially regional airports—Southend and, I am delighted to see, Luton are developing in this way—could take many more point-to-point leisure flights, rather than them flying from Gatwick, or even Heathrow. Why does Heathrow have so many flights to Orlando? Why does it have flights to Malaga or Larnaca?

There is a very strong case for Gatwick. Many regional airports can help with the load. The debate that we have been having about aviation has been horribly distorted by what I am afraid are preposterous efforts by the Mayor of London to put the Thames estuary airport on the agenda, 10 years after it was categorically ruled out, and by the issue of Heathrow. Very strong vested interests want expansion at Heathrow. There are some economic arguments for the country as a whole for expansion there. However, there are costs, in terms of those living under the flight path, and in terms of our political promises; and the value of politicians sticking to what they promise is strong.

As to what the Transport Secretary says, and the argument that “It is all very well talking about a third runway at Heathrow, and mixed mode, but what is the next step?” it is incumbent on those who want expansion at Heathrow to say what happens in 30, 50 or more years. The reason the Secretary of State does not get the answers is that those with a vested interest at Heathrow—BAA and British Airways—do not want unlimited expansion there. It would undermine their monopoly position. The idea of going for mixed mode is attractive to BA—not necessarily to BAA, because it does not get the higher regulated capital. A third runway allowing marginal expansion of perhaps another 20 million passengers is attractive, because it maintains the value of the slots but allows them to develop. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) may want to discuss the fact that if we want Heathrow to be a mega-hub, perhaps remaining the biggest in the world and taking on Dubai as well as competitors in Europe—there are strong arguments against that, particularly from the point of view of people who live in the area, and the environment—it could mean taking over RAF Northolt and putting in several runways linked into Heathrow, as a long-term single giant hub solution.

Despite arguments that two hubs are not ideal, that is a far better solution than complete constraint on any expansion, or only looking after the interests of Heathrow. If we were to see the Oneworld alliance at Gatwick— short-term expansion is being done very well at the moment, and there could be longer-term expansion, but only once the 2019 agreement runs out—it would be a much more sensible way forward. There is a basket of other options, all of which make more sense than harking back to the preposterous estuary airport proposal, or looking at UK aviation solely through the issue of a third runway at Heathrow.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin, for what I think is the first time.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) on obtaining this important debate on the different issues relating to competition in the aviation industry. I agree with many of the points he made, and it is worth exploring further the points with which I disagree. He is serious about trying to find a solution to the country’s aviation policies, and that is worth discussing. Judging by the expressions of everyone taking part in the debate, there is agreement that Boris island is a complete non-starter. It is a decoy duck, Potemkin village, a red herring, or, as the previous Labour Secretary of State said, bonkers; it will not happen. But it is part of the illusions around aviation policy—which are the basis not of what the hon. Gentleman has been saying but of the Government’s policy—that somehow we do not know what has been happening in aviation, and there is more information to be found out. That simply is not true.

Going back to the Roskill commission in 1969 and a series of other White Papers and investigations, more is known about aviation policy in the south-east of England than about possibly any other area. If we want to be competitive, there must be more airport capacity in the south-east. Otherwise, the decline and damage that lack of aviation is causing to the economy will continue. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is right to suspend any discussion for the length of the Parliament. It might be right for the coalition agreement, but it is not right for the economy.

[Mark Reckless]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Graham Stringer]

I will in a moment, but I want to go through some of the points that the hon. Gentleman made.

I do not think the “Heathwick” proposal works in detail. When I give way to the hon. Gentleman I want him to tell me about any city in the world—Toronto, Washington, Glasgow—that has tried having two airports. There are examples all round the world of countries saying “We will have an intercontinental airport here and a domestic one there,” and finding that neither of those airports has worked. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of a city with two competing hubs. The nature of hubs, and what makes them valuable—both for countries and airlines—is that airlines from all over the world go into them, with great interconnectivity. The idea of competing hubs is a contradiction in terms, and there is no real evidence that having two adjoining airports works.

[Mark Reckless]

I am delighted to have some discussion of the issue in the current Parliament, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister what decisions may be made about how that discussion should happen. I just do not think we should build any new runways during this Parliament.

I disagree about dual hubs. Perhaps the idea has been tried in, say, Tokyo and one or two other places and has not been ideal, but we are not making a comparison with the ideal; we are making a comparison with the constrained capacity possibility that 14 million people might try to fly from Exeter. Expanding Gatwick, rather than restricting it, will not result in the perfect economic hub airport, but hubs give declining returns, to scale, to the extent that they get bigger and bigger. If we allow flights to new emerging markets and competing hubs operating in the competitive interest of the country, rather than one hub operating in the interest of the monopolist based there, that would be a significantly better airline policy than the one we have.

[Graham Stringer]

All I would say is that the proposition has not worked. We are in decline and we need extra runways in the south-east. Only one new runway has been built in this country since the second world war. Heathrow was, I think, originally planned to have 12 runways, albeit in a different configuration. The hon. Gentleman can look at the history books if he wants to.

The hon. Gentleman’s argument relies on two issues: first, that our connections to China, as the Minister of State said, mean that we are not really suffering; and secondly, that slots are too cheap at Heathrow, and if we freed up that market we would help the economy as a whole. Let me give some evidence.

The Frontier Economics report, “Connecting for Growth”, which was produced in 2011, showed that trade is 20 times higher where there are direct flights to cities in China. It estimates that the UK is missing out as trade goes to France, Germany and Holland, and quantifies the cost to the UK economy of a lack of connections as £1.2 billion a year. Taking that present value over 10 years, that amounts to £14 billion. Paris and Frankfurt boast 1,000 more annual flights to the three largest Chinese cities, Beijing, Chongqing and Guangzhou, than we get from this country. The Minister of State is right to say that we send a large number of flights to Hong Kong, and that there is hubbing in the Oneworld alliance at Hong Kong. The City of London is doing quite a lot of damage at the moment, but if we consider some of the effects, and the latest financial centres index, the Hong Kong index has gone up by 21 and London has gone down by three. There is a correlation, if not a direct one, between the hubbing that is going on there and the damage that is being done to the UK economy. Forbes Magazine has shifted the UK down from sixth best country in the world in which to do business to 10th best. One contributing factor is our connections with other countries.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) on securing the debate, which has been excellent; there have been many very useful contributions. There is no doubt that the UK has a highly successful aviation sector, and I pay tribute to the energy and enterprise that we see from that industry, in the face of challenges as tough as the global slow-down and, of course, rising world oil prices. Developments over the past 20 years, such as the introduction of low-cost, no-frills airlines, have provided real passenger benefits and unprecedented choice and opportunity to fly.

In the year of the Olympics and the diamond jubilee, we are reminded once again of aviation’s critical role as the route to bringing in tourism. However, the very success of our aviation industry presents us with a key challenge: how do we accommodate growth and seize the benefits generated by aviation while meeting our environmental commitments and addressing the quality-of-life impact of aircraft noise?

It is very clear that London is one of the best-connected cities in the world, with its five busy and successful airports—six, if newly expanded Southend is included. Together, those five airports provide direct links to around 360 international destinations, including virtually all the world’s great commercial centres. That compares with just 309 such links from Paris, and 250 from Frankfurt. Heathrow provides more flights to New York than Paris and Frankfurt put together, and has more flights to the crucial BRIC—Brazil, Russia, India and China—economies than other European hubs, including more services to China.

Airlines are launching new routes to key emerging-market destinations. BA has recently announced a new service to Seoul. China Southern Airlines now flies from Heathrow to Guangzhou. Gatwick has a new Air China service to Beijing, and the aviation industry continues to invest and innovate. Birmingham airport will shortly begin constructing a runway extension better to enable it to serve long-haul destinations. The operators of Heathrow and Gatwick are investing £5 billion and £1 billion respectively over the next few years in better infrastructure. Of course, it is important to press for the further liberalisation of aviation, in terms of opening up the opportunity for UK airlines to provide flights to more destinations—something called for by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood.

[Mark Reckless]

Why does it need to be UK airlines? Surely the benefit for the UK is to have airlines—Brazilian or Chinese as much as UK ones?

Civil Aviation Bill

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stringer]

The hon. Lady is right in what she says, but all three mayoral candidates are wrong on this matter.

It is completely legitimate for any constituency MP, including the Secretary of State, to oppose what they think their constituents do not want. However, it is also incumbent on any Government to consider the national interest, not just the interest of people representing west London. Exactly the same argument is used about High Speed 2, and the analogy is a good one. I chair the all-party group on high speed rail, but if somebody was driving High Speed 2 through my constituency, I would oppose it, because I would like to carry on being an MP and representing my constituents. That is a reasonable thing for an MP to do, but I also know that HS2 is good for the economy. Similarly, I know that constraining runway capacity in the south-east is extremely bad for the economy. It will do no good for the environment; it will just strangle the British economy.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman implies that there may be a tension between a constituency interest and the national interest, but the Government’s policy and the Conservative party’s policy of being against a third runway at Heathrow precedes the previous Secretary of State. It has really been this Minister, when in opposition and in her current role, who has taken on the vested interests and put forward a policy that protects the environment, as well as the national interest. I do not believe that there is any relevant constituency interest here.

[Graham Stringer]

I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, and I agree with him on a number of policies, but he is in error in his understanding of the history of the development of the Conservative party’s policy. To be fair to the Lib Dems, they have always opposed the third runway at Heathrow. The Conservative party was in favour of it until Boris Johnson thought he had a chance of winning the previous mayoral election—that changed its national policy. The Labour party was in favour of a third runway. When the Conservatives became the Government, the shadow Secretary of State said that she would change the Labour party’s policy—I do not agree with this, but I can see why she did it—so that there could be a discussion about how to deal with the problem facing us.

That problem—this is the final point I wanted to make—is that Heathrow is losing destinations and business, and not just because of the capacity on runways. We face at least a double whammy: air passenger duty is having an effect, too. The situation is directing passengers to airports in Europe that have added extra runways, such as Madrid, to where British Airways has moved much of its operations, and Charles de Gaulle. The hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) was talking about integrators. The two main centres for freight in the aviation industry are Brussels and Charles de Gaulle; we have already lost out on those issues. Passengers are going to Madrid, Charles de Gaulle, Schiphol and Frankfurt, and, increasingly, to Copenhagen, at the expense of London. That is damaging not only the London economy, but the UK regions, because of the decreasing number of routes from the regional economies into Heathrow, in particular, and into the whole of the south-east system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer]

Since the second world war, as the Minister will know, Heathrow has been the largest international airport in the world. Soon it will no longer be that. It is still bigger than Frankfurt as regards its international destinations, but—I do not have the figures in front of me—the number of destinations served by Heathrow has gone from something like 220 to 180. Increasingly, the passenger numbers are going up because larger aeroplanes are going to fewer and fewer destinations.

I wanted to make both that small point about why the word “effective” is not in the first two clauses and the larger point that I would like not only the words to be in the Bill but there to be an effective aviation policy, which the Government do not have. On this issue, although not necessarily on others, the Government’s policies are anti-business and anti-growth. They are damaging the UK economy and they need to change them. Changing the wording of the Bill would help.

[Mark Reckless]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer). First, let me respond to what he said about Heathrow and China. We all see the adverts in Westminster tube station, but there is a fundamental inconsistency in the line being pushed by BAA and the Mayor of London, among others, that Heathrow is essential as a hub but that we do not have enough point-to-point flights to different places in China. The model used by BA and its oneworld alliance relies not just on Heathrow as a hub but on Hong Kong, too. It is deciding that it is more effective to use Hong Kong as a hub, for all the reasons given by the hon. Gentleman and others, and to fly to all those Chinese cities with greater frequency and service out of Hong Kong. I do not accept the argument that a lack of point-to-point flights from Heathrow to cities in China makes the case that Heathrow needs a third runway to be a hub airport. The very economies of the hub and of the Heathrow and Hong Kong dual hub model for service for China lead to the system that we have.

[Graham Stringer]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very sensible point about where hubs develop in the world. Hubs developing in the middle east are doing a similar job in serving parts of China and there are also hubs in south-east Asia. A better measure of the failure of Government policy is the number of airlines that want to get into Heathrow from all parts of the world but cannot do so. A number of those airlines, some from China and some from other developing countries with large growth rates, have applied but cannot get their aeroplanes into Heathrow. Does he not agree that that is a better measure?

[Mark Reckless]

The reason there is unsatisfied demand for Heathrow and people who would like to fly from there but cannot is that landing slots at Heathrow are still cheaper than those at other airports and certainly cheaper than they could be. BA uses most of those landing slots, has capitalised the value and does not sell many of them on, partly to ensure that there is only limited competition so it can maximise its profits. I will return to that point, but I have quite a lot of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s arguments that the regulator should look to ensure that licence holders—airports—are effective as well as economic and efficient.

I also have considerable sympathy with the shadow Minister’s new clauses on National Audit Office oversight. However, I understand that those are only intended to be probing. I hope that that will also be the case with his amendments, because ultimately I trust the Minister on this issue. I do so for the ultimate reason that, in so many areas of public policy one can pretty much know what the policy will be by looking at where the money is—where the vested interests lie—and at what the civil servants are pressing. Too often Ministers merely oversee that policy solution. In this area I believe that it is the personal, political intervention of the Minister, both as shadow Secretary of State in opposition and now as Minister responsible for aviation policy, that led to, and kept, the Conservative policy against a third runway at Heathrow.

[Gavin Shuker]

Twice now the hon. Gentleman has referred to the blocking of a third runway as a policy, as in an aviation policy that could deliver some outcomes. Does he not accept that that is not a policy—it is just saying no?

[Mark Reckless]

No. I think we need a basket of options. I am delighted to hear that at Luton, in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, there are such significant plans for expansion. At Gatwick, too, there is significant expansion, even of the one runway, and the possibility of a second runway from 2019. I wonder whether one option might be rail links between Heathrow and Gatwick and/or Luton, and whether the charges could pay for those. I am interested in hearing about the Northolt options and what the impact might be if Northolt were linked in to Heathrow. I very much believe that Birmingham airport, in terms of being half an hour from Old Oak Common or 40 minutes from Euston on High Speed 2, can become a very significant player in the south-east aviation market.

[Pat Glass]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mark Reckless]

I will finish the point, if I may. I do not understand why so much aviation demand from the north and the midlands has to come all the way down to Heathrow when, perhaps, Birmingham or Luton could satisfy much of that.

[Gavin Shuker]

All those potential options with different airports are hugely interesting. Unfortunately, we have not heard from the Government what their policy is—their strategy. The options have to fit into some kind of framework, and still as we speak, two years into the term of this Government, none exists.

[Mark Reckless]

The policy is for a south-east airports consultation. The previous Government sought to conduct such a consultation, and would not even consider as an option a second runway at Gatwick until I, along with Medway council, Kent county council, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and Essex county council, backed a judicial review which overturned that policy.

[Pat Glass]

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that now only two regional airports in this country have flights into Heathrow? Therefore, if we are travelling to New York, South Africa or Australia from the regions in this country, it is far easier to go to Charles de Gaulle, Frankfurt or Schiphol. That is not good for Heathrow, it is not good for the British economy and it is certainly not good for business in the regions.

[Mark Reckless]

I strongly support our policy of promoting High Speed 2 for inter-regional transport within the UK. I recognise the value of transfer passengers at Heathrow for the provision of the network it has, but I do not ultimately see how it is a disaster for the British economy if some people from the regions transfer at a European hub for some flights, rather than always coming to Heathrow. What I would like to see at Heathrow are high value flights that produce the best outcome for the country as a whole. Having Heathrow operated effectively would be very sensible. It has significantly increased its landing charges in order to pay for the third runway and, under the quinquennial review, Heathrow-BAA has carried on raking in that money, even though it is not investing in the third runway that that money was meant to fund. I do not see how that makes sense.

Most people refer to the CAA as a good and effective regulator, but how will it remain so? What certainty do we have about that? That is why a role for the NAO, expectations that it should be efficient in its management, and a role in ensuring the effectiveness of licence holders are, in principle, sensible things to ask for. I hope the Minister, the Department and in due course the CAA will listen to Members and ensure that those things happen.

The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) about freight transport—that the consumer is indifferent to the mechanism used for that freight transport—may also apply to Heathrow. As an economist, my assessment is that the end user, the consumer of flight services through Heathrow, may be indifferent to the level of landing charges—to the extent that the price of tickets is set by the scarcity and the monopolistic pricing at Heathrow, rather than on the basis of the cost of using Heathrow. Therefore, just as I previously suggested that there might be a great deal of investment in Heathrow, which could be good for consumers without pushing up prices for those end users, so, if the CAA were to be a flabby and inefficient regulator that was putting its own charges on the industry, it could do that without the statutory constraint of acting in the interests of the users of those services.

We have seen that the scarcity at Heathrow has become capitalised in the costs of slots. When they are traded, it can be £5 million or £10 million now per pair of take-off and landing slots, to the great benefit potentially of BA, but to who else’s benefit? That has happened not through a decision of the House, and not even through the development of the common law, but through the development of European jurisprudence in this area. There is very significant value there. The CAA could transfer that value from BA to BAA with little, if any, impact on the consumer, or it could allow for significantly greater investment, or it could be quite flabby and inefficient or, to the extent that Government policy influences this and we have air passenger duty which is higher for the south-east or particularly higher for Heathrow, that might raise money to help the Government close the deficit, without having a negative impact on the users of Heathrow. All these are significant points that need to be considered, along with the value for money and the effectiveness propositions.

I should like to address briefly the issues raised in Government amendment 19 in relation to the market power determination. I support the Bill and the Minister, and I will defer to her judgment on this, but I am nervous about the extent to which we are giving power to the CAA to make this market power determination. It used to apply to Manchester; it no longer does. I have heard arguments with respect to Stansted and to Gatwick as to why it should not apply. The risk with Stansted, I would have thought, is not so much that it would shove up the prices massively, but that Stansted may not be competing effectively with Heathrow as it would if it were under separate ownership.

We have just heard comments about flights to Asia and emerging markets, but we have recently seen significant openings of routes into and out of Gatwick to places such as Vietnam and South Korea. There may be the prospect of significant further movement in that direction. But larger airlines—A380s and so on—currently do not have particularly good service at Gatwick, and it is difficult for Gatwick to invest to service the A380s and to have people transferring straight from the plane into the terminal, because of the significant cost involved and the need at least to bring along the current airline users of the airport and the great difficulty of putting through the investment if they are fighting it tooth and nail.

If Gatwick feels that it should invest significant sums of money in better terminal facilities in order to service the A380s and the type of airline that flies them, and allow the sorts of routes to high-growth markets in Asia that we so strongly support, I see no strong reason why it should be prevented from doing so and charging what the market will bear. I believe that that could be to the benefit of the consumer. The CAA might be a good regulator and take that into account, but at least the idea, in principle, of allowing freer competition and having less regulation and fewer airports with the market power determination—it is only really Heathrow where there is clearly substantial power—might lead to a more competitive system in which Gatwick and Stansted were free in the way Manchester now is. I am not certain, but it might do so. Under the Bill, it will now fall to the CAA to make that decision, unless this is reconsidered before the Bill is passed. I would like to pay my regards to the Minister and say that I trust her position on this and hope that the CAA will make the right decisions as well.

Civil Aviation Bill

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention, and make the observation that that is indeed very true; it really is!

I welcome the Bill and the emphasis it places on furthering the interests of passengers and the modernisation of the Civil Aviation Authority. I suspect that many of my remarks will already have been made, but there is no doubt that reforming the existing framework to slash back the rigid regulation and the burdensome bureaucracy currently in place is a positive step. Granting the CAA greater independence from the Government will take important aspects of aviation regulation—the designation of airports for price capping, for example—out of the political sphere, while enabling the CAA to take on the responsibility to enforce competition law will help empower passengers and cargo owners.

The future of aviation in this country and the economic benefits derived from air travel that we have heard about in the debate will no doubt depend heavily on this legislation and subsequent actions from the CAA. I hope that the CAA will utilise its new powers wisely and act in a way that promotes competition to make our airports competitive and strong.

We should remember that our airports are not just places where passengers and cargo are transported across the world, as they are vital economic hubs essential to jobs and growth in our economy across the country—not just in London and the south-east. As we have heard from many colleagues, regional significance is key. Ministers and the CAA must be mindful that while this Bill will support competition between airports in the UK, our airports need a regulatory framework that, importantly, lets them attract investment so that they can compete with their global rivals.

Anyone who has travelled regularly overseas on business will recognise and acknowledge the improvements that many other countries have made to their airports. As we have heard, whether it be Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Dubai and the Gulf or India, amazing things are being done with their airports. This brings us back to the point about consumer experience, but also the experience of business travellers. This is not about convenience alone, but about making sure that these are vital economic and competitive hubs.

Many of the airports are impressive. They have expanded their capacity. Dubai, for example, built another airport in next to no time. Such developments make these cities and countries much more attractive for business and leisure purposes. Passengers who travel to various destinations are stopping off at these airports, which have incredible facilities—new runways and terminals, for example. This frees up capacity and enables our economic rivals to develop airport hubs. We need to wake up to this and learn from their experiences. We need to look at what has worked and what has not worked. It is amazing that some countries seem capable of building these airports overnight. We talk about being open for business, but if we want to be an economic powerhouse, we have to get some insights from these other countries.

These rival airports offer ever-increasing numbers of destinations to fly to, so we have to face the challenges of capacity—not just at Heathrow, as the regional airports are also important. I do not want to see our airports becoming the end-point for global aviation travel rather than being an important hub. We must facilitate this hub issue and link up to worldwide destinations. I certainly do not want to see the UK losing out to other hubs, including European hubs. At a time when we need to ensure that Britain is open for business, if we do not act swiftly enough to come up with the right kind of aviation approach and strategy, we will lose out on international competitiveness. I hope the Minister will assure me that, observing their duties as set out in clauses 1 and 2, the CAA and the Secretary of State will further the interests of users of air transport services, will take all necessary steps to ensure that our airports are the most attractive places for passengers to visit, and will offer passengers more choice.

As consumers, passengers want not just the best possible price but a good travelling experience. Over the years terminal 5 has overcome its initial major teething troubles, but I remember what it used to be like there for people travelling with families. Nothing can be worse than a dreadful airport experience, particularly for those travelling with young children. Such experiences can be really off-putting, especially when airlines are not co-operative in informing people about what they can and cannot take on board, and I hope that there will be some improvement in that regard.

Innovation and investment are also key issues. I think that we can do more to increase business travel, and to help our regional airports. We in Essex have Stansted airport, which is not far from my constituency: it is 15 minutes’ drive up the A120. Stansted has had an interesting time over the past few years, partly because it has expanded to become a hub for new airlines servicing the United States and Asia. That initially represented something of a trial for the airport. It started at what was a bad time for the global economy, when there was a lack of business passengers. I believe that the Bill can help to empower Stansted and other regional airports, so that they can innovate and invest in accordance with their own regional growth strategies at a time when enterprise zones are coming on stream.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has mentioned regional airports, airports in Essex, and innovation and investment. Is she aware of the work that has been done at Southend airport, which has received considerable support to enable it to expand and provide the area with a real economic boon?

[Priti Patel]

I know about that work. I also know how hard organisations such as Essex chamber of commerce and other business partners and stakeholders are working to assess viability and sustainability and attract investment to Essex and the south-east.

Stansted serves more than 18 million passengers each year, and is the third busiest airport in the United Kingdom in terms of passenger numbers. In that respect, it ranks only slightly below Heathrow and Gatwick. Its planes fly to 150 destinations, and it offers many scheduled flights to European airports as well as flights on low-cost airlines. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) mentioned one of those. Members have also mentioned the environment. Stansted has a great record of mitigating environmental problems, minimising the disruption caused by noise by ensuring that 99% its of aircraft stick to their flight paths. Half the number of passengers travelling to Stansted use public transport.

I have mentioned Stansted for economic reasons. It is a vital catalyst for regional and national growth, it is a cargo hub, and it employs more than 10,000 people. One in six of those jobs is filled from my constituency and the wider district of Braintree. Such airports—Heathrow was mentioned in this context by the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston—are vital in providing our constituencies and regions with employment and investment.

It is essential for Ministers and the CAA to bear in mind that increasing airport capacity is not an unreasonable objective. Environmental concerns have been mentioned, but above all we should consider the interests of passengers and the need to demonstrate to the world that the United Kingdom is open for business. This is not just about airports in the south-east; it is about UK plc. I touched on the role of enterprise zones earlier. They will be central to the facilitation of inward investment, and I think that they should be complemented by a great and robust aviation strategy for the United Kingdom.

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in a debate that has featured a sparkling maiden speech from the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra). I spent a great deal of time in what is now her constituency, trying to ensure that she did not get the job. My wife lived there when we were courting, and I know it reasonably well. I know, too, how important the biggest airport in the country is to the constituency, and how many people work there. I know that she will be a very good champion of all her constituents, and I congratulate her again on her maiden speech.

It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who reminded us of the importance of runways in the context of aviation. There was an incident not so along ago when a jet coming into Heathrow did not quite make it, and that proved that runways are all-important.

Let me record my sympathy for the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers), who was to have responded to the debate. I hope that I am correct in describing her as a right hon. Member. If she is not one, she should be, for she is excellent. Unfortunately, in a bid to become road safety Minister, she was injured in a cycling accident and is undergoing surgery.

As we have heard from Members on both sides of the House, including the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston and my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher), aviation plays a critical role in UK plc. My constituency, which is in the heart of the midlands, near junctions 15 to 19 of the M1—anyone who remembers seeing the old Rugby radio mast while driving up the M1 will know where it is—is now typified by a number of jobs that rely on the aviation industry. It is a hub for all the cargo that is shipped up from Heathrow, down from East Midlands airport and across from Birmingham. It is because so many jobs in my constituency rely on the aviation industry that I wanted to speak in the debate.

However, aviation is important to the economy in many other ways. I was recently lucky enough to travel to Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Georgia. All the people whom I met in those growing economies had this in common: they were desperate to come to the city of London, and, if they had any money, they wanted to spend it here. We need a gateway that can accept all those fantastic consumers of the future, and can welcome those who wish to do business with us and invest in us.

The experience at Heathrow airport is very different, however; it is a shopping centre with a couple of runways attached. For the Heaton-Harris family, getting to a gate at Heathrow airport involves an awkward shopping experience. The last flight I caught out of there cost me only a couple of hundred pounds, but the shopping experience almost trebled that. I know only too well, therefore, how much business comes from airport shops.

I have an airport in my constituency. The wonderful airport of Sywell has a rich history and an interesting and controversial present, which is why that is the only comment I shall make about it.

Turning to our country’s larger airports, much of our aviation regulation is governed by 1980s-style legislation, which is one of the reasons this Bill has been introduced. This Government and the last Government both realised it needed to be updated.

[Mark Reckless]

My hon. Friend talks of 1980s-style legislation as if it were a bad thing. Does he not remember who our Prime Minister was at that time, and might he therefore like to reconsider that remark?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I am suddenly enamoured with 1980s-style legislation. Indeed, I had the haircut to go with the music of that era—I had some follicles back then.

The Bill offers a package of reforms to make regulation and the sanctions that support it flexible, proportionate, targeted and effective. It proposes removing unnecessary regulation and intervention by central Government and devolving more responsibility to the independent specialist regulator, the CAA. It also seeks to make the CAA accountable and to ensure that it weighs both the costs and benefits of its decisions. Further, it proposes that some of the costs of regulating aviation should be moved from general taxation to the aviation industry, so that the people who use it, pay for it. That is the right way forward.

Above all, the Bill puts the consumer first, and I am all in favour of that. I am a regular customer of the aviation industry—although I would like to be a more regular customer—and when booked on a Ryanair flight I become the Michelin man, as I will wear all my clothes because I do not want to pay the excess sum for booking in a suitcase. I am also the man who has to repack his “smalls” in front of the waiting British Airways passenger queue because my baggage weight has exceeded the limit and the lady at the check-in desk has said, “23 kilos and a few extra grams is too much.” I am all for more deregulation and common sense in the aviation industry, therefore. It is very important that the consumer is put first in respect of the regulation of airports, which have substantial market power. The CAA’s primary duty should be to consumers. Passengers and, importantly, the owners of cargo must have a greater say.

The Bill also gives the CAA a role in promoting better public information about airline and airport performance. I support the clauses that provide that. Transparency and greater information are essential. As a consumer, I like to be able to look at relevant information and choose my airport and carrier. In that regard, the more transparency, the better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), who told us about his courting days under the Heathrow flight path. I am sure that colleagues were delighted to hear that he still regularly returns to Heathrow with his now wife. It is not clear whether they do this on their anniversary or not, but it seems that a certain amount of shopping at Heathrow is involved.

I am also pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who put the case for Essex very well and looked strongly after the interests of her constituency and Essex more widely in her remarks about Stansted, the strong progress on expansion and the strong economic role being performed at Southend. I know that the councils for Southend, Thurrock, Medway, Kent and Essex are working together as a local economic partnership on sensible proposals on aviation and alternative options to the Thames estuary option, which was so ably dismissed by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price). The Secretary of State was not in her place at that time, but I have every confidence that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) will pass on those very strong arguments in private as strongly as he does in public. Let me also take this opportunity to thank the Secretary of State for the very strong support she has shown for our area by holding back the increase in the Dartford tolls and in what she has done on train regulation and fares.

The debate has been largely non-partisan. Indeed, the regulation of aviation has been a non-partisan and technical area on which both parties have worked closely with Whitehall going back all the way to 1967 when the Edwards committee first looked at aviation regulation. It took a full two years to report, in 1969, to the then Secretary of State Anthony Crosland, and the report led to a White Paper from the then Labour Government. With the new Conservative Government in 1970 came the Civil Aviation Bill, which followed through on that preparatory work. There are clear parallels between that work and the way we are working together on these issues now.

It is worth noting that when the CAA was set up it was a pathbreaker for other regulators. The then Minister for Trade, Michael Noble, said, on introducing the Bill, that the CAA would be a “constitutional innovation.” He went on:

“The key point perhaps is that we are in this Bill hiving off a regulatory function. Ministers remain responsible to Parliament for policy, but detailed decision rests with the Authority.”—[Official Report, 29 March 1971; Vol. 814, c. 1173.]

That was new then, but we have since seen the development of regulators in many different contexts. The challenge between ministerial and parliamentary responsibility and expert opinion remains with us today and is core to this Bill.

A very positive development, in contrast with what we saw in the late 1960s and early 1970s, was the fact that the Pilling review of the Civil Aviation Authority was brought about by elected colleagues on the Transport Committee rather than by ministerial decision. That report was published in July 2008 and was followed up by Labour Ministers in the previous Government in a statement to the House and then in a consultation paper. The fact that that all came as a result of the Select Committee is new and is very much to be welcomed. When the previous Government engendered the proposals, the then Minister noted that

“as now, the CAA will only be able to act where it is reasonable and proportionate and where it has legal power to act.”

However, the CAA responded:

“The DfT’s proposals build on many activities already undertaken by the CAA, but give them a clear statutory basis”.

The then Minister did not explicitly accept that the CAA had been operating beyond its statutory remit, but the Bill is long overdue, as it will bring clarity to what the CAA does, and make sure that that is Parliament’s intention.

[Steve Baker]

Does my hon. Friend share my slight concern that more flexible regulation may result in greater uncertainty in major capital investments in airports? Has he considered whether the CAA will be able to provide the stability that investors need?

[Mark Reckless]

Our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out three clear principles on quangos and cases in which they might be justified. Conservatives are strongly against unaccountable quangos, but the three scenarios that the Prime Minister set out were, first, a precise technical function that needed to be performed to fulfil a ministerial mandate; secondly, a requirement for politically impartial decisions on public money in particular circumstances; and, thirdly, cases in which the facts needed to be transparently determined. The CAA fulfils the need for a precise technical function to be performed to fulfil a ministerial mandate.

I welcome the Bill. Although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) said, it provides more flexibility, it engenders far greater clarity. To date—and we have given this to the CAA—the authority has had four different objectives, but there is a lack of clarity about their order, so, inevitably, it has great discretion in how it chooses to balance those potentially competing objectives.

In the Bill, under the single duty that the Government propose giving to the CAA for consumers and their interests, it is much clearer where the authority is going. Regulation, while more flexible, should none the less be more predictable to people in the industry and to other stakeholders. That is broadly welcome. The same applies to appeals. If anyone is dissatisfied with a CAA decision, the only recourse is simply judicial review and the application of Wednesbury principles as to whether the decision has been properly made. The appeal process in the Bill is much improved, because a specialist competition tribunal will be introduced, and it will look at the objectives that have been set for the CAA by Parliament. It will assess in an expert yet judicial way whether or not they have been properly met. Ministers are not persuaded that there should be a right of appeal for the Secretary of State on licence conditions, but when regulations are extended to price cap anew or to remove a price cap, the Secretary of State may have the right to appeal. It is not clear from the explanatory notes whether that reflects the EU dimension or whether Ministers genuinely believe that that is a positive measure.

The cap application is significant. Manchester was de-designated, and Ministers made that decision—a statutory order was made—but the principles behind that de-designation were not clear, making investment difficult in some circumstances for the aviation industry. If we have a clear parliamentary test of when a price cap is needed, that should provide greater clarity for industry participants.

It would be difficult to have an environmental objective and a consumer objective, then look to an independent regulator to balance the two. The right approach for the greenest Government ever is for Ministers to make those decisions and to set a clear framework, whether in taxation or planning, for industry. That is the best way to balance those objectives.

A key issue is flexibility, and flexibility in the price cap is particularly valuable. The CAA currently has an opportunity to set the price cap only once every five years, and when circumstances change the price regime can be left looking inappropriate, but nothing can be done about it. For example, the CAA’s decision notice, published in March 2008, states that

“at Heathrow, the CAA has built into the price caps contingent funding for the costs of developing further”—

during the five-year period—

“the option to expand the capacity of the airport.”

The House of Commons Library has confirmed that that was a reference to the potential third runway at Heathrow, which of course did not happen and—Ministers are very clear—will not happen. None the less, Heathrow is still to be regulated on the basis of an RPI plus 7.5% a year increase in the overall landing charge revenue, but there is no opportunity to review that in the light of the decision not to develop a third runway at Heathrow.

The shadow Secretary of State, if I heard her correctly, said that the Government have a blanket ban on expansion at airports in the south-east. I believe that that is quite wrong. Look at what Luton airport is doing through its road show and expansion in capacity or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Witham explained, what Southend airport is doing. Last week I met representatives of Birmingham airport, who talked about expanding by 25 million passenger movements, the vast bulk of which would relieve pressure in the south-east. At Gatwick a significant increase in capacity is planned, even before the second runway restriction runs out in 2019.

The key criterion is the benefit to consumers of the regulation. However, there is something about aviation regulation that makes it different from other regulation, because in the middle there are the airlines. Sometimes their interests are the same as the consumer’s, but other times they are not. The landing charge at Heathrow is perhaps only £16 a passenger, compared with £50 to £80 for “Boris island”, and £16 or thereabouts is really not expensive. Given the economic benefits of using Heathrow, a huge amount of the benefit accrues to the airlines that happen to have slots there. The regulation in those slots is imperfect and has developed over time, but were the regulator to increase charges at Heathrow, it is not immediately obvious to me, as an economist, whether that would be passed on to consumers in the usual way. To the extent that Heathrow is almost at capacity and landing charges are so low, despite the high value of a slot, an economic analysis suggests that lower restrictions on landing charges might lead to a lower slot price and greater flexibility for the efficient allocation of slots, rather than that necessarily being passed on to the consumer. How the CAA will regulate this is therefore an important area of principle to consider.

The chairman, deputy chairman and non-executive directors of the CAA will be appointed by the Secretary of State, which is very sensible. It is difficult to see why the Secretary of State would also want to appoint all the executives, let alone determine their precise remuneration. We want to ensure proper accountability to Parliament. Some colleagues have mentioned the National Audit Office. I understand that the chief executive would be signed off by the Secretary of State as well, although the nomination would be made by the non-executive directors. I also hope that we would have appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of those appointments.

I am grateful to colleagues on the Transport Committee for the work they have done on this. It is excellent that everyone is working together and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments. It is certainly a strong positive for the regulation of the sector in this country.

Thames River Crossings

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I am grateful for the opportunity to address that point. I have been less than compromising in my attitude towards the Thames estuary airport, but I think the hon. Gentleman's point about more crossings is that we need a much more long-term approach to our national road infrastructure. I remind him that his Government looked at this issue in 2009 but parked it because it was too difficult. When we consider road infrastructure issues, there is often a natural nimby tendency. We all want to represent our voters’ interests, but we need the courage to have the debate and think about what is really important for the long term. If we do not have that, we will be putting much-needed jobs at risk, and we cannot afford to do that right now. Generally, I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that we must look at where the traffic need is likely to be in the long term.

However, as my hon. Friend the Minister said in his statement on ports policy, taking into account where shipping will arrive in the future can open up opportunities to reduce road journeys. We need to look creatively at how we move things around, taking a joined-up approach. The issue of the airport is interesting because, if truth be known, that debate has been taking place, championed by its enthusiasts, without any thought as to the impact on shipping and wider infrastructure outside London.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

We heard yesterday very little support for the Thames estuary airport proposition, but one proposal has been floated, with very little detail to it, by Lord Foster, which would cost at least £50 billion. He is looking to include a bridge, a barrage and various other things. Can my hon. Friend confirm that that is an absolutely preposterous proposal?

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I am on record as describing that proposal as pie in the sky, and I have not seen anything to change that opinion.

Getting back to the issue of crossings rather than airports, we clearly need more crossings east of Blackwall, and I am delighted that the Minister is not going to duck the issue for a moment longer and that firm proposals will be made. I am not quite sure that I will entirely like what he has to propose, but we have already had a number of robust exchanges on this and I am sure there will be many more.

As I mentioned, the priority must be a new crossing in east London. One can see, just by driving through it, as the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse would confirm, that what has really been missing is a link between the north and south circulars. That will unlock opportunities in east London. The area between the ExCeL centre and London city airport is within minutes of central London and it is staggering that it has not really benefited from more development. I am therefore delighted that the Government have put their support behind the Mayor of London’s proposal for the new crossing linking Greenwich and Silvertown. I gather that the tunnel will have the capacity to carry up to 2,500 vehicles an hour—a significant increase in capacity, but not enough. As I said, I believe the crossing will divert some of the congestion from Dartford, and since the Mayor of London is determined to complete the crossing within a decade, it is obviously an extremely positive development for the capital and for road users within the M25.

I know, however, that the Minister’s main priority is the new crossing in the lower Thames. The previous Government also concluded that such a crossing was necessary. I gather that on every working day the Dartford crossing is operating at capacity, and because of those volumes, even with the removal of toll barriers and the introduction of free flow and the consequent increase in capacity that that will deliver, by 2031 the crossing will be at capacity again. Given how long it takes for this country to build major infrastructure projects, clearly we must make a decision now if we are to be ready to meet those future demands.

As I said, although I welcome the crossing, its ultimate location is of central importance to my constituents in Thurrock. Although, as far as the Department is concerned, the Dartford crossing is part of the national road infrastructure, its impact is local. It has air quality consequences for my constituents. It causes congestion, particularly when there are queues to access the crossing at junction 30/31 of the M25, and I take the opportunity to remind the Minister that improvements to that junction are extremely necessary to maximise the efficiency of the existing road network. That is also felt by the business community, given the importance of the logistics industry and the opportunities for job creation in that sector. The need to ensure that traffic moves will determine the degree to which the local economy can grow.

I shall run through some of the options, to get on record some of the concerns that my constituents have. One option is to link Gravesend and East Tilbury; I believe it is being championed by Kent county council. That option has aroused considerable opposition from my constituents. It would require the destruction of huge swathes of green belt in Thurrock to make way for a new motorway. As Thurrock already hosts the M25, the Dartford crossing and the A13, residents are extremely unhappy at the prospect of more green belt being dug up to build new roads, and the Thurrock Gazette recently collected many thousands of signatures for a petition to that effect which I presented to the House last year. I recall that when the previous Government looked at that option it had the weakest business case for alleviating congestion at Dartford.

Another option is for a crossing between Swanscombe and Tilbury. This would have the advantage of joining an existing road that has some spare capacity, but there is a serious question over whether it could cope with the capacity generated by a new crossing. The third option is for an additional crossing at Dartford. This is perhaps the one that generates the most concern, given the volume of traffic we currently struggle with. Given that the M25 is being widened to five lanes in each direction, it is clear that the traffic will bottleneck at Dartford, where the provision is only four lanes in each direction.

We desperately need the improvements that the changes at junction 30 will deliver to deal with the current situation, as the existing road infrastructure cannot support current volumes, let alone an additional crossing adjacent to the existing one. We need an assurance from the Minister that the consequences for Thurrock will be fully considered as the Government review the options. Given Thurrock’s position as a logistics hub, the road infrastructure simply must function adequately so that our traffic can get around.

There will of course be massive benefits if new infrastructure can be achieved, but I would like to put on the record three criteria that I would like the Minister to take on board when considering the options. We want assurances: first, that the new crossing will not result in the destruction of Thurrock’s green belt for the purpose of constructing new motorways; secondly, that it will not add additional traffic volumes to our already overcrowded road network; and thirdly, that it will alleviate congestion at the Dartford crossing. Clearly, the degree to which the new crossing interacts with the existing road network will determine the degree to which congestion is alleviated. Without these assurances, there will be extremely strong opposition in Thurrock to a new crossing.

There are a number of other issues, and perhaps myths, that the Minister needs to address as the debate moves forward. Many of my constituents believe that the new crossing should be further east, effectively creating a new outer circular. It is difficult to see where such a crossing could be constructed, given the width of the Thames further along the estuary and the cost implications that that would have for a new crossing, be it a tunnel or bridge, but it is important that those options are considered before they are rejected or accepted. I have also mentioned that much of the demand is generated by the volume of heavy goods vehicle traffic from Dover, so we need to be imaginative about how we can divert some of that away from the crossing, not only by having a new crossing, but perhaps by transporting more by ship.

Finally, my constituents often tell me that there would be no need for an additional crossing if the tolls were removed. They believe that the toll barriers are the principal source of congestion. I do not believe that their removal is a solution for the long term, but the Government need to make the case for why expansion is necessary so that we take everyone with us on the need to invest in this road infrastructure. I look forward to the Minister’s comments. I am sure that this will not be the last time we debate the matter, but having the debate is important because, ultimately, it will lead to a better final decision on where the crossing will be.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)]

Since I last answered Transport questions, the consultation on high-speed rail has closed. The Department has announced £155 million of investment from the first-round allocation of the local sustainable transport fund, concluded deals to put new carriages on key commuter rail routes, set out the next stages in the Department’s rail franchising programme and launched a consultation on proposals for new lane rental schemes to cut the number of rush-hour roadworks.

[Mark Reckless]

Many of my constituents who are not rich but were used as guinea pigs for RPI plus 3% by the last Government have no choice but to commute by coach, getting up at 5 or 6 am to get into London. Will Ministers welcome the statement by Southeastern yesterday that it will henceforth use the flex possibility to consider elasticities so that areas where people are not well off and where there is significant competition may see lower fare increases in future?

[Mr Hammond]

Absolutely. We are all in favour of competition. Train operators should note what is happening in the marketplace, and where coach operators are taking their business they should use the flexibility that they have to respond.

Crayford Station (Access)

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Tuesday 7th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Evennett]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he has taken the opportunity tonight to make that point, as I have, and I hope the Minister will be sympathetic. Southeastern must address those issues for the benefit of those who are less mobile, so that they can use public transport, which we want.

Government funding is, I understand, available for step-free access. The Department for Transport website states:

“The Access for All Programme is part of the Railways for All Strategy, launched in 2006 to address the issues faced by disabled passengers using railway stations in Great Britain. Central to the Strategy is the ring-fencing of”

a certain amount of money

“until 2015, for provision of an obstacle free, accessible route to and between platforms at priority stations.”

As you would expect me to say, Mr Speaker, I think that Crayford is a priority station. I also understand that Access for All small schemes funding is available for smaller work programmes such as the one that I propose for Crayford. That is worth up to £250,000 a project, and is a contribution of 50% towards the total cost of the works.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

On funding, our constituents who use the Southeastern trains service have particularly high expectations, and investment in the service is quite justified, because for reasons that I do not fully understand, Southeastern was singled out by the previous Government for RPI plus three rather than RPI plus one increases.

[Mr Evennett]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, on which I will elaborate later in my speech.

I contacted Southeastern about the issue of step-free access at Crayford in May 2009. I was told that Crayford was not included in its works programme for step-free access. Instead, I was offered a telephone number for constituents to call if they wanted help at the station or to get a taxi from the nearest fully accessible station. Helping commuters off the train with a ramp is obviously a good thing, but I do not know whether someone would actually carry a wheelchair over the footbridge to get it to the other side. That is a considerable number of steps, and certainly I have not had any experience of my constituents being offered that service. This means that rail users with mobility problems travelling in Kent would have to go to Dartford station to catch or get off a train. That is not always convenient as it is two miles away from Crayford station.

I was also concerned that I had not seen advertised the telephone number that Southeastern gave me for people with mobility problems to use. So I vigorously pursued the matter, met Mark Gibson of Southeastern at the station and highlighted the problem in person, so that he could see it first hand. I also showed him that there was already step-free access at the side of platform 2, because there was a footpath and a gate that had been used in the past. This gate had been locked to commuters for some time and, regrettably, the footpath had been allowed to deteriorate into a state of disrepair. In my opinion, unlocking the gate and resurfacing the footpath could solve the issue of step-free access quickly, effectively and cheaply. As we all know, money is tight these days and public expenditure tough, but very little money would be needed to open up that opportunity.

It came to light through subsequent correspondence in June and July 2009 with Bexley council that the land that this access point would be on was now owned by Sainsbury’s, whose store is near the station, and that the council was exploring options to achieve access over the land. I met a representative of Sainsbury’s later in the year, Ben Littman, who was very positive about the scheme. I was advised that the land over which access was necessary would be transferred to Bexley council’s ownership as part of an agreement relating to Sainsbury’s planning application to extend its store, subject to the necessary surveys and permission. I also learned from the council, not the train company, that £55,000 had been allocated to Southeastern from the national station improvement programme for the scheme, so at this stage—as the Minister will appreciate—things looked positive.

Southeastern had been provided with a simple, cost-effective proposal, supported by me, Sainsbury’s, constituents and local councillors; permission for access over the land required for the scheme; a gate already in place; the basis of a footpath; and funding from Network Rail to deliver step-free access. It should have been so simple. Unfortunately, I heard nothing further from Southeastern about the project for some time. What I discovered later was that due to its concerns about lost revenue, it had already decided not to proceed with the scheme. Despite having been allocated £55,000, it was concerned that it would have to spend money on automatic barriers and an Oyster reader system, which would have cost more than the £55,000 allocated, and employ an additional member of staff. But not to worry, it provided me with the same telephone number for constituents that it had given me more than a year before. I am appalled by the lack of concern for passengers that this attitude displays.

The justification offered by Southeastern for its decision not to proceed does not stand up to scrutiny, and that is why I am grateful for the opportunity to raise these issues in this Adjournment debate. I believe that the continued lack of step-free access at Crayford station, which Southeastern had the opportunity to rectify and failed to do so, is a disgrace of which it should be ashamed.

Southeastern claims that automated barriers are required in order to protect fare revenue. It has not provided any estimates as to how much this lost fare revenue is worth and alludes only to its studies. However, I pointed out that when it installed step-free access at Barnehurst station a couple of miles up the road on a different line, following my successful campaign, it did not put in automatic barriers. I also noted that an uncontrolled access gate to Crayford station’s platform 1 was routinely left open for people to walk in and out. So it was all right on one side, but not on the other side of the station, which I thought was very strange. It could not justify to me why the situations were different. I have learned that, since I have been commenting on this issue, it has now quite cynically stopped leaving open the uncontrolled access to platform 1—it has now been locked as well. That is very strange, is it not?

Fare revenue is obviously important to Southeastern, and it claims that the cost of installing automatic barriers would have been prohibitive. I asked how much it would cost over and above the £55,000 it has already been allocated, but I did not get a direct answer other than, “It would probably cost about £12,000”. It could not provide an accurate estimate of the cost of installing an automatic barrier with the appropriate cabling, although it thought it would be up to about £100,000. I do not believe the barrier is necessary. In my opinion, it is another red herring. Last year, the Southeastern parent group took over about £1.5 billion in rail revenues, and its operating profit is quite considerable as well. Given the public subsidy, the consistent growth in fare revenue—I note that passenger revenues rose considerably in 2008 and 2009—and the fact that it is making an operating profit in a difficult economic climate, I find it hard to believe that it could not find the small amount of money that would allow it to transform the opportunities for people with disabilities to travel on its trains.

Another reason Southeastern highlighted was that the barriers were necessary to prevent antisocial behaviour and vandalism at the station, but that did not apply in Barnehurst station, where it said that it did not matter at all. I think its reasoning is inconsistent and that it is holding a negative view of Crayford residents—one that I totally disagree with and think is an insult to the people of Crayford. That said, of course, communication is definitely not Southeastern’s strong point. I found out about the funding—or the lack of it—and its cancellation from Bexley council, not from Southeastern.

Why would Southeastern not tell me that it was cancelling the project, unless it was afraid of being held to account for its decision? I am advised that the money that Southeastern was given for step-free access is to be delivered to other stations, but it would not tell me which ones. Bromley has been mentioned as a possibility, but a quick look on the Access for All website shows that it was due to get money for that project anyway, so I am still at a loss to know what has happened to the money originally promised to Crayford. I also understand that Crayford was awarded £51,000 in 2007, under the Access for All small grant scheme, to provide level access from the road to the downside platform by resurfacing the disused station approach and installing lighting. So the money was there, but Southeastern chose not to use it, which again is disappointing.

I must mention as a sideline that Southeastern has shown a similarly poor attitude to helping vulnerable commuters at Slade Green station, which is also in my constituency. That is a different station with a different problem. It has step-free access to each platform, but because of the layout of the surrounding area, it is difficult to make the journey from one side of the platform via the road to the other platform. Earlier this year, I met the representatives of the Bexley association for disabled people, who are concerned about access for the disabled at this station. Some of the things there are also simple to resolve. There are no ramps on to the pavement from the set-down area, and there are steps from the bus stop to the set-down area meaning that those with mobility problems have a difficult problem as well. The footbridge is also a problem because it is sloped like a ramp, and it is quite difficult for disabled people to go up and down it.

Again, the response from Southeastern was not encouraging. I was given information that I already knew and was advised that there was an Access for All scheme, but again larger stations got priority. I got the same information about the telephone numbers, so I now have it printed indelibly in my memory. I appreciate that money is an issue for Southeastern, but I think that investment in passengers and the benefit of passengers should be its top priority.

I would like to briefly mention the comment by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) about how fares have gone up dramatically and how it was under the last Labour Government that Southeastern was given a derogation to increase fares considerably above the rate of inflation, which has meant that commuters from Crayford and Slade Green have paid considerably more for the same journey. Yet they have not been accommodated when it comes to step-free access or helping people with disabilities to use the station facilities. Now that we know the July rate of the retail prices index, I am naturally concerned as to what the rate increase will be in January for commuters travelling from my constituency. I want to put on record that the Labour Government’s allowing huge rises on top of inflation was totally unacceptable and unfair to people in my area.

As I have highlighted at some length, this is an important issue for me and for the people who live in Crayford. I cannot understand why we have been unable to get such a simple improvement, which would transform the opportunities for those with mobility problems. They should not have to have extra help, or travel to another station. They should be able to get on and off the trains at their own station, and to commute up to London or out into Kent as they wish. Step-free access would transform the situation, especially at a time when we are encouraging more people to use public transport. It is essential that we give people the opportunity to get on and off the platforms, so that they can use public transport. I urge Southeastern to look again at its decision. Others—the council, businesses and other organisations—are investing in the future of Crayford, and I believe that Southeastern should do the same. I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree with me, and that he will use his considerable influence to help us to get step-free access for my constituents at Crayford station.